State of Maharashtra and Others v. Dr. Sharvil Thatte and Others

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1814 of 2018. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein had filed aforesaid writ petition challenging condition No.(ii) in the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Notification dated 30.01.2018 issued by State of Mah arashtra for admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in unaided Private Educational Institutions in State of Maharashtra. Said condition read as under:- “(ii) The candidate shall be a domicile of State of Maharashtra.” 4. Similar such condition which was imposed by the State Government for the academic year 2017-18 was stayed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide Order dated 30.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.5283 of 2017, which order was challenged by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14447 of 2017 in this Court. Said petition was however not pressed by the State and was accordingly disposed of by this Court on 05.05.2017. 5. The challenge to the aforesaid condition was accepted by the High Court in its judgment under appeal relying principally on the decisions STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DR. SHARVIL THATTE of this Court rendered in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others 1and in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others 2. While allowing the petition and setting aside the condition, the High Court observed:- “8] It could thus be seen that, it is a settled position in law that, though it will be permissible to provide reservation on the ground of institutional preference, the condition which requires a candidate who has possessed a graduate degree also to be domiciled in that State, would not be permissible.” 6. By our Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.204/2018, we have accepted the challenge to similar condition incorporated in Information Bulletin issued by State of Ka rnataka for admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in Go vernment Colleges and in respect of Government quota seats in Private Medical/ Dental Colleges. We have principally relied on the Judgmen ts of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and Vishal Goyal (supra). 7. In the circumstances, we affirm the view taken by the Hi gh Court in the present matter and see no reason to interfere. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs. Divya Pandey Appeal dismissed. 1 (1984) 3 SCC 654 2 (2014) 11 SCC 456